Alan Fletcher has posted an interesting analysis of the Oct 6 test on the Vortex mailing list. There is a mine of excellent detail and I recommend the technically inclined to follow that thread (and others at Vortex).
The analysis was conducted by Bob Higgins of Motorola and sent to Mats Lewan (Ny Teknik), Alan and others at Vortex. He has also joined the discussion on that thread.
Hello Mr. Lewan,
I am enclosing my spreadsheet analysis of the data you published for Ing. Rossi’s October 6 test at U. of Bologna of his E-cat. In this analysis, I tried to incorporate reported items such as water leakage, heat loss through the insulation, difference in source water temperature and the water temperature of Tin, and the final energy stored in the E-cat when the experiment was terminated. If you have the occasion to look through this analysis, I would appreciate hearing of anything you find that may not be consistent with your observation as a first hand witness to the test. You are welcome to share this with others that may also be able to evaluate the analysis for missing features or wrong calculations.
We considered the possibility of contamination of the Tout by the hot water/steam of the heat exchanger primary input. However, because the secondary water was flowing up out of the secondary outlet and out of the brass header, and the contamination primary heat would have to pass this water to reach the thermocouple, and because the flow rate was high in the secondary, heat from the primary inlet would quickly be diverted into the secondary outlet water. Thus, very little of this contamination heat would make it to the thermocouple and cause temperature error – we regarded it as a possible minor second order error. If you draw a cross-section picture of this pipe and the flowing water, you can see how possible contamination heat from the primary inlet would likely terminate in the secondary outlet water long before reaching the thermocouple.
I would agree with everyone else that there was much that could have been improved the experiment, but the real point now it to understand the data we have and determine what information that can be derived from it with confidence.
It is interesting now how the skeptical criticism on the net seems to be switching from “doesn’t work at all” to “doesn’t work with acceptable commercial COP”. Are the skeptics now convinced there was large scale excess energy? In and of itself, this is a physics shattering breakthrough. It is clear from the data that the COP would have been much higher if the test had been run for a longer period. I am personally excited by the results and data from the experiment.
Thanks to Ing. Rossi for hosting the experiment – he was under obligation to no one to do the experiment – and to you for reporting the data.
[Tip o' the hat to Maryyugo]<< Previous Post -- -- Next post >>